ZŝƐŬĂƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶƉĂŐĞǀϭ͘Ϯ
;ϭϲͬϬϯͬϮϬϭϭͿ
Information about GB Non-native Species Risk Assessments
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) emphasises the need for a precautionary approach towards non-native species where there is often a lack of firm scientific evidence. It also strongly promotes the use of good quality risk assessment to help underpin this approach. The GB risk analysis mechanism has been developed to help facilitate such an approach in Great Britain. It complies with the CBD and reflects standards used by other schemes such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, European Plant Protection Organisation and European Food Safety Authority to ensure good practice.
Risk assessments, along with other information, are used to help support decision making in Great Britain. They do not in themselves determine government policy.
The Non-native Species Secretariat (NNSS) manages the risk analysis process on behalf of the GB Programme Board for Non-native Species. Risk assessments are carried out by independent experts from a range of organisations. As part of the risk analysis process risk assessments are:
• Completed using a consistent risk assessment template to ensure that the full range of issues recognised in international standards are addressed.
• Drafted by an independent expert on the species and peer reviewed by a different expert.
• Approved by an independent risk analysis panel (known as the Non-native Species Risk Analysis Panel or NNRAP) only when they are satisfied the assessment is fit-for-purpose.
• Approved for publication by the GB Programme Board for Non-native Species.
• Placed on the GB Non-native Species Secretariat (NNSS) website for a three month period of public comment.
• Finalised by the risk assessor to the satisfaction of the NNRAP.
To find out more about the risk analysis mechanism go to: www.nonnativespecies.org
Common misconceptions about risk assessments
To address a number of common misconceptions about non-native species risk assessments, the following points should be noted:
• Risk assessments consider only the risks posed by a species. They do not consider the practicalities, impacts or other issues relating to the management of the species. They therefore cannot on their own be used to determine what, if any, management response should be undertaken.
• Risk assessments are about negative impacts and are not meant to consider positive impacts that may also occur. The positive impacts would be considered as part of an overall policy decision.
• Risk assessments are advisory and therefore part of the suite of information on which policy decisions are based.
• Completed risk assessments are not final and absolute. Substantive new scientific evidence may prompt a re-evaluation of the risks and/or a change of policy.
Period for comment
Draft risk assessments are available for a period of three months from the date of posting on the NNSS website*. During this time stakeholders are invited to comment on the scientific evidence which underpins the assessments or provide information on other relevant evidence or research that may be available. Relevant comments are collated by the NNSS and sent to the risk assessor. The assessor reviews the comments and, if necessary, amends the risk assessment. The final risk assessment is then checked and approved by the NNRAP.
*risk assessments are posted online at:
https://secure.fera.defra.gov.uk/nonnativespecies/index.cfm?sectionid=51
comments should be emailed to [email protected]
Name of Organism:
Objectives:
Version:
N QUESTION COMMENT
1 What is the reason for performing the Risk Assessment?
Request made by GB Programme Board
2 What is the Risk Assessment area? Northern Ireland is ignored, as it is covers itself via the 'All Ireland' initiative to deal with NNS.
3 Does a relevant earlier Risk Assessment exist?
4 If there is an earlier Risk Assessment is it still entirely valid, or only partly valid?
The previous risk assessment on this species (see Copp et al. 2005a, 2005c) was undertaken in 2004, prior to the outcome of a large body of research. The present assessment is intended to re-assess the species in light of new knowledge.
A Stage 2: Organism Risk Assessment SECTION A: Organism Screening
5 Identify the Organism. Is the organism clearly a single taxonomic entity and can it be adequately distinguished from other entities of the same rank?
Topmouth gudgeon (Pseudorasbora parva ), also know under various names, mostly English translations of foreign common names (stone moroko, false rasbora, or clicker barb), is native to eastern Asia, including Japan and Korea.
6 If not a single taxonomic entity, can it be redefined?
7 Is the organism in its present range known to be invasive, i.e. to threaten species, habitats or ecosystems?
One of most invasive fish species currently reported on in Europe (e.g.
Copp et al. 2005b).
8 Does the organism have intrinsic attributes that indicate that it could be invasive, i.e. threaten species, habitats or ecosystems?
Scored as highly invasive (i.e. rejected) by the FISK (Fish Invasiveness Scoring Kit (see Copp et al. 2005a, 2005c, 2009). See the attached report of a FISK re-assessment undertaken in November 2007.
9 Does the organism occur outside effective containment in the Risk Assessment area?
Pinder et al. (2005).
10 Is the organism widely distributed in the Risk Assessment area?
Pinder et al. (2005).
11 Does at least one species (for herbivores, predators and parasites) or suitable habitat vital for the survival, development and multiplication of the organism occur in the Risk Assessment area, in the open, in protected conditions or both?
Assess the risks associated with this species in GB FINAL 30/03/11
RESPONSE
Pseudorasbora parva - Topmouth gudgeon
YES (Give the full name & Go to 7)
YES or UNCERTAIN (Go to 9) YES (Go to 10)
YES (Go to 9)
YES & Future conditions/management procedures/policies are being considered
(Go to 19)
Un-infested catchments of England, Scotland & Wales
YES (Go to 4)
PARTLY VALID OR NOT VALID (Go to 5)
GB NON-NATIVE ORGANISM RISK ASSESSMENT SCHEME For more information visit: www.nonnativespecies.org
conditions or both?
12 Does the organism require another species for critical stages in its life cycle such as growth (e.g. root symbionts), reproduction (e.g. pollinators; egg incubators), spread (e.g. seed dispersers) and transmission, (e.g. vectors)?
13 Is the other critical species identified in question 12 (or a similar species that may provide a similar function) present in the Risk Assessment area or likely to be introduced? If in doubt, then a separate assessment of the probability of introduction of this species may be needed.
14 Does the known geographical distribution of the organism include ecoclimatic zones comparable with those of the Risk Assessment area or sufficiently similar for the organism to survive and thrive?
15 Could the organism establish under protected conditions (e.g. glasshouses, aquaculture facilities, terraria, zoological gardens) in the Risk Assessment area?
16 Has the organism entered and established viable (reproducing) populations in new areas outside its original range, either as a direct or indirect result of man’s activities?
17 Can the organism spread rapidly by natural means or by human assistance?
18 Could the organism as such, or acting as a vector, cause economic, environmental or social harm in the Risk Assessment area?
19 This organism could present a risk to the Risk Assessment area and a detailed risk assessment is appropriate.
See response to Q8.
Detailed Risk Assessment Appropriate GO TO SECTION B
20 This organism is not likely to be a harmful non-native organism in the Risk Assessment area and the assessment can stop.
B SECTION B: Detailed assessment of an organism’s probability of entry, establishment and spread and the magnitude of the economic, environmental and social consequences
Probability of Entry RESPONSE UNCERTAINTY COMMENT
1.1 List the pathways that the organism could be carried on. How many relevant pathways can the organism be carried on?
very many - 4 LOW - 0
Five pathways:
1) Intentional transfer and introduction by humans (e.g. release of aquarium, garden or live bait specimens);
2) Contaminant of fish consignments (i.e. the unintentional presence of the species in consignments of fish moved from one location to another);
3) Unintentional transfer and introduction by humans (e.g. angling gear, as contaminant of live bait taken from one water and used elsewhere);
4) Unintentional transfer and introduction (of eggs) by birds;
5) Natural dispersal. See Copp et al. (2007b) 1.2 Choose one pathway from the list of pathways selected
in 1.1 to begin the pathway assessments.
TMG entered and dispersed around Europe as a contaminant of consignments of target fish species, initially Asian carp species, then common carp, then ornamental species (e.g. golden orfe). See Bănărescu (1964); Copp et al. (2005b).
1.3 How likely is the organism to be associated with the pathway at origin?
moderately likely -
2 MEDIUM -1
A paper by Copp, Vilizzi & Gozlan (submitted - b), which examines associations between fish movements and TMG occurrence has demonstrated that the likelihood of introduction is dependent upon consignment origin and the type of consignment (i.e. coarse vs . salmonid;
ornamental vs . angling variety/species). TMG occurrences are most significantly associated with the trajectories of golden orfe movement, then sunbleak, then European catfish, then Atlantic salmon, then grass carp.
1.4 Is the concentration of the organism on the pathway at origin likely to be high?
moderately likely -
2 LOW - 0 Depends on location. At contaminated sites, densities can be very high (Beyer 2004; 2008).
1.5 How likely is the organism to survive existing cultivation
or commercial practices? very likely - 4 LOW - 0
Species does well in aquaculture (Beyer 2004; reviewed in Beyer 2008).
1.6 How likely is the organism to survive or remain
undetected by existing measures? moderately likely -
2 LOW - 0
Small-bodied species, able to hide amongst other fish. Also, species can be confused with other species of similar size and pigmentation, e.g.
Leuciscus souffia (see Copp et al. 2007b).
1.7 How likely is the organism to survive during transport
/storage? very likely - 4 LOW - 0 Species is very robust and known to survive even short periods of toxic
chemicals (see Allen et al. 2006).
1.8 How likely is the organism to multiply/increase in
prevalence during transport /storage? unlikely - 1 MEDIUM -1 Depends upon the period of storage - during short periods, no; during extended period in the correct season (e.g. summer), then possibly yes.
1.9 What is the volume of movement along the pathway?
major - 3 LOW - 0 Fish movements are in large quantities (see Copp et al. 2007b, and Copp et al. submitted - a).
1.10 How frequent is movement along the pathway?
often - 3 MEDIUM -1
Using England as an example, fish movements are frequent (see Copp et al. 2007, and Copp et al. submitted - a & b). The level of fish movements in other parts of GB were not available to the Risk Assessor when the cited studies were undertaken, but movements of salmonids in Scotland Fish consignment contaminant
often - 3 MEDIUM -1 cited studies were undertaken, but movements of salmonids in Scotland are thought to be frequent, and Copp et al. (submitted - b) found a significant association between TMG occurrences and Atlantic salmon movements in England, so the pathway of movement is demonstrated for a species relevant to Scotland.
1.11 How widely could the organism be distributed
throughout the Risk Assessment area? very widely - 4 LOW - 0 The susceptible area has been estimated at 104,232.82 hectares (see attached file: UKNNRA_EconRisk_P_parva_Jan05.xls).
1.12 How likely is the organism to arrive during the months of the year most appropriate for establishment ?
very likely - 4 LOW - 0
Fish movements are normally during the cooler months of the year, but given the relatively mild UK climate, introductions during winter are unlikely to affect immediate survival, and the species would be in situ and ready for reproduction in the next vegetative season.
1.13 How likely is the intended use of the commodity (e.g.
processing, consumption, planting, disposal of waste, by-products) or other material with which the organism is associated to aid transfer to a suitable habitat?
very likely - 4 LOW - 0
Fish movements (in which TMG are likely to occur as a contaminant) in the UK are generally to still waters, which are the locations where the species is most likely (in the UK) to establish populations (Copp et al.
submitted a & b).
1.14 How likely is the organism to be able to transfer from
the pathway to a suitable habitat? very likely - 4 LOW - 0
As a contaminant, the species is introduced directly to the receiving water body along with the target fish (i.e. the species being moved intentionally).
Probability of Establishment RESPONSE UNCERTAINTY COMMENT 1.15 How similar are the climatic conditions that would affect
establishment in the Risk Assessment area and in the
area of current distribution? very similar - 4 LOW - 0
The species' establishment throughout the UK is evidence of this (Pinder et al. 2005). A recent study (Britton, Davies, Godard & Copp, submitted) reveals a relatively good climate match between E&W and the native range of TMG.
1.16 How similar are other abiotic factors that would affect establishment in the Risk Assessment area and in the area of present distribution?
very similar - 4 LOW - 0
The species' establishment throughout the UK is evidence of this (Pinder et al. 2005; Beyer 2008; Beyer et al. 2007, etc.).
1.17 How many species (for herbivores, predators and parasites) or suitable habitats vital for the survival, development and multiplication of the organism species are present in the Risk Assessment area? Specify the species or habitats and indicate the number.
very many - 4 LOW - 0
The susceptible area has been estimated at 104,232.82 hectares (see attached file: UKNNRA_EconRisk_P_parva_Jan05.xls), which is over 50% of the freshwaters of the UK.
1.18 How widespread are the species (for herbivores, predators and parasites) or suitable habitats vital for the survival, development and multiplication of the organism in the Risk Assessment area?
widespread - 4 LOW - 0
The species' establishment throughout the UK is evidence of this (Pinder et al. 2005; Beyer 2008; Beyer et al . 2007, etc.).
1.19 If the organism requires another species for critical stages in its life cycle then how likely is the organism to become associated with such species in the risk assessment area?
N/A LOW - 0
1.20 How likely is it that establishment will not be prevented by competition from existing species in the Risk
Assessment area? likely - 3 LOW - 0
The species is a voracious predator of zooplankton etc. and takes other species' eggs, and is a facultative parasite, with some evidence to suggest it impedes the reproduction of other species (Britton et al . 2007, 2008).
1.21 How likely is it that establishment will not be prevented by natural enemies already present in the Risk Assessment area?
very likely - 4 LOW - 0
Biological resistance was examined in the doctoral research of K. Beyer (2008) and was found to be insufficient (i.e. well below that required) to prevent establishment.
1.22 If there are differences in man’s management of the environment/habitat in the Risk Assessment area from that in the area of present distribution, are they likely to aid establishment? (specify)
likely - 3 LOW - 0
Most of the waters deemed suitable to TMG are not designated sites of conservation interest, and as such are less likely than protected sites to attract the resources required for eradication (if infested by TMG). Indeed, the EA's TMG eradication decision matrix specifically scores down non- conservation sites, reducing the likelihood of eradication action. A paper on this decision-making process for control is Britton, Davies, & Brazier (submitted manuscript) is currently under review. There may be variations within the UK as to the allocation of resources, in particular when TMG is first reported in that area (e.g. a first report in Scotland might provoke an eradication action even in a non-conservation water simply to keep Scotland 'TMG free').
1.23 How likely is it that existing control or husbandry measures will fail to prevent establishment of the organism?
Copp et al. (submitted - b) has demonstrated the association between fish movements (in particular golden orfe) and TMG occurrence. As golden orfe from the original infestation site (in Hampshire) were sold through ornamental wholesalers, the fish (and the contaminant TMG) were moved outside of Section 30 controls, and other sites and stocks (of golden orfe and of other species) were contaminated with this species. Fish from some of these contaminated sources were eventually moved under very likely - 4 LOW - 0
some of these contaminated sources were eventually moved under Section 30 controls, hence the observed statistical association. Since fish farms are not being shut down, nor prohibited from selling fish after being found to have TMG on site, there are effectively no measures being used to prevent establishment of the species in other waters. Also,
consignments from outside the UK are checked for contents only randomly or following 'tip offs', so further imports of the TMG as a contaminant could enter without detection. See papers by Gozlan, by Beyer, by Pinder, by Copp for more details.
1.24 How often has the organism been recorded in protected conditions, e.g. glasshouses, elsewhere?
occasional - 2 LOW - 0
The species was previously sold in the ornamental trade as 'clicker barb', but the numbers of locations of sale is unknown and the number of TMG originally imported (as a contaminant of target fish consignments) and the number of contaminated import consignments are unknown.
1.25 How likely is the reproductive strategy of the organism and duration of its life cycle to aid establishment?
very likely - 4 LOW - 0
The species is a nest guarder, has a short life span and matures early (at age 1). In the UK, the most likely species to establish are nest-guarders (unpublished results from R.E. Gozlan; see also Gozlan et al. 2002).
1.26 How likely is it that the organism’s capacity to spread will aid establishment?
very likely - 4 LOW - 0
Dispersal is both by natural and human-assisted means, which provides the species with novel environments, and in some cases multiple introductions to the same water, thus enhancing genetic diversity and the species' likelihood of establishment without encountering a genetic bottleneck.
1.27 How adaptable is the organism?
very adaptable - 4 LOW - 0
TMG is one of the most adaptable, tolerant and thus invasive species in Europe (Copp et al. 2005b; Pinder et al. 2005; Gaviloaie & Falka 2006).
See also www.fishbase.org 1.28 How likely is it that low genetic diversity in the founder
population of the organism will not prevent
establishment? likely - 3 LOW - 0
Although no genetics work on this species is known to have been undertaken in the UK at the time of the RA, the persistence of the species at most sites suggests no founder population genetic constraints, but there is at least one case where this may have been a factor (Copp et al.
2007a).
1.29 How often has the organism entered and established in new areas outside its original range as a result of
man’s activities? very many - 4 LOW - 0
TMG is well known to have been introduced to new areas as a result of human activities, in particular via fish stocking exercises (Copp et al.
2005b; Pinder et al. 2005; Gaviloaie & Falka 2006). See also www.fishbase.org
1.30 How likely is it that the organism could survive eradication campaigns in the Risk Assessment area?
unlikely - 1 LOW - 0
Although temporarily resistant to rotenone (Allen et al. 2006), TMG eradications in the UK appear to have been successful, including those using drain-down and liming as an alternative to rotenone (Britton &
Brazier 2006; Britton et al. 2007, 2008). These eradications have been limited to small water bodies, and it is well known that the effectiveness of rotentone (and other) eradication methods decreases with increasing size of water body or water course. As the question does not allow for any distinction between different types of water body, the response is given with regard to those ecosystems types (i.e. smaller water bodies) in which eradication has been attempted in the UK. To respond otherwise would not reflect the existing knowledge for the UK, albeit limited to specific water body sizes.
1.31 Even if permanent establishment of the organism is unlikely, how likely is it that transient populations will be maintained in the Risk Assessment area through natural migration or entry through man's activities (including intentional release into the outdoor environment)?
N/A LOW - 0
Spread RESPONSE UNCERTAINTY COMMENT 2.1 How rapidly is the organism liable to spread in the Risk
Assessment area by natural means?
slow - 1 MEDIUM -1
Spread is mainly by human-assisted means (see Pinder et al. 2005), with natural dispersal dependent upon situation (Beyer 2004; Beyer 2008);
specifically, the movements of TMG out of infested fisheries (both fish farms and angling amenity water bodies) and into adjacent streams has been measured quantitatively via drift-net sampling. Because tagging of the species is currently not viable (due to tag rejection; see Stak÷nas et al.
2009) the dispersal of the species within the receiving stream has been assessed indirectly via the electrofishing of downstream stretches to determine the species' downstream distribution patterns (as a means of assessing how far it spreads from the point of origin). The data suggest that it does spread, but there is little evidence of in-stream reproduction (in contrast to the species' native range), and that movement upstream has yet to be demonstrated from field data. There is little evidence of new populations being reported in locations that appear to be due to natural (rather than human) dispersal of the species.
2.2 How rapidly is the organism liable to spread in the Risk
Assessment area by human assistance? rapid - 3 LOW - 0 Spread is mainly by human-assisted means (Copp et al . 2005b; Pinder et al. 2005; Gaviloaie & Falka 2006).
2.3 How difficult would it be to contain the organism within the Risk Assessment area?
difficult - 3 LOW - 0
In view of the species ability to tolerate poor conditions, its known ability to hide under the gills of larger fish during transport, and the commonness of fish movements between waters, the species could to be moved outside England & Wales to adjacent areas.
2.4 Based on the answers to questions on the potential for establishment and spread define the area endangered by the organism.
British Isles, including Ireland.
Impacts RESPONSE UNCERTAINTY COMMENT 2.5 How important is economic loss caused by the
organism within its existing geographic range?
moderate - 2 MEDIUM -1
There is no hard evidence, but eradication costs are high (see attached file: UKNNRA_EconRisk_P_parva_Jan05.xls) and there are suggestions that the reproduction of native species is inhibited in infested waters (Britton & Brazier 2006; Britton et al. 2007).
2.6 Considering the ecological conditions in the Risk Assessment area, how serious is the direct negative economic effect of the organism, e.g. on crop yield and/or quality, livestock health and production, likely to be? (describe) in the Risk Assessment area, how serious is the direct negative economic effect of the organism, e.g. on crop yield and/or quality, likely to be?
major - 3 MEDIUM -1
There is no hard evidence, but eradication costs are high (see attached file: UKNNRA_EconRisk_P_parva_Jan05.xls) and there are suggestions that the reproduction of native species is inhibited in infested waters (Britton & Brazier 2006; Britton et al. 2007).
2.7 How great a loss in producer profits is the organism likely to cause due to changes in production costs, yields, etc., in the Risk Assessment area?
moderate - 2 MEDIUM -1
Fish farmers are obliged to modify the management practices of their farms when infested by TMG, as the species interferes with the target fish species and contaminates the consignments.
2.8 How great a reduction in consumer demand is the organism likely to cause in the Risk Assessment area?
minor - 1 HIGH -2
No assessment has been carried out, but it is assumed to have some impact at the local scale, in particular as regards angling amenity (decrease in angler interest in waters infested by TMG). All depends on what one defines as ‘consumer demand’. Since common carp and salmonids are the main angling species in most of the UK, and based on current patterns of TMG establishment, TMG establishment is not likely to take place in Scottish salmonid streams. Thus, the main area of ‘consumer demand’ is in carp fisheries. As these are generally stocked (i.e. not dependent on natural reproduction), the apparent impediment to reproduction placed by TMG on other fish species is thus irrelevant to carp.
2.9 How likely is the presence of the organism in the Risk
Assessment area to cause losses in export markets? very unlikely - 0 LOW - 0
The export of fish from the UK is unlikely to be affected.
2.10 How important would other economic costs resulting from introduction be? (specify)
moderate - 2 LOW - 0
There are considerable costs associated with eradication (see attached file: UKNNRA_EconRisk_P_parva_Jan05.xls), with some additional costs to government associated with the licensing/surveillance (e.g. ILFA) of the sites found to be infested by TMG.
2.11 How important is environmental harm caused by the organism within its existing geographic range?
moderate - 2 LOW - 0
The species is the healthy host of non-native diseases (Gozlan et al.
2005; 2006) and is suspected of inhibiting the reproduction of native fishes (Britton & Brazier 2006; Britton et al. 2007). However, evidence from France suggests that in relatively low densities TMG has no impact on native fishes (Carpentier et al. 2007).
2.12 How important is environmental harm likely to be in the Risk Assessment area?
The species is the healthy host of non-native diseases (Gozlan et al.
2005; 2006); the laboratory investigations of Gozlan's team have demonstrated that exposure of sunbleak (a non-native fish to the UK but native to, and threatened in parts of, Continental Europe) resulted in the eventual death of the sunbleak due to the 'rosette agent' carried by TMG.
Not all populations of TMG in Western Europe carry this pathogen (see Carpentier et al. 2007), but it is prevalent in UK populations. Rosette agent is known to be a threat to native salmonids in the UK, and Gozlan is
major - 3 LOW - 0
agent is known to be a threat to native salmonids in the UK, and Gozlan is currently undertaking laboratory studies to assess the impact of the rosette agent on native non-salmonid freshwater fishes. TMG is suspected of inhibiting the reproduction of native fishes, given that none of the species in the water body were observed to recruit during the period of TMG infestation and that recruitment of native fishes re-commenced after TMG was successfully eradicated from the pond (Britton & Brazier 2006; Britton et al. 2007). Therefore, the likely harm in the RA area is considered to be sufficiently high that the EA has in fact put together a so-called 'eradication matrix' that is used to aid decision makers in deciding whether an TMG population invading a water body poses a sufficiently high threat to native species and ecosystems to warrant the expenditure of resources to eradicate the species from that water body. Although there have been incidental fish eradications (i.e. single water bodies by a species), TMG is the only non-native freshwater fish species to have raised sufficient concern that it has resulted in a more formalized eradication framework.
2.13 How important is social and other harm caused by the
organism within its existing geographic range? minor - 1 HIGH -2
No formal assessment has been made, but this is currently considered to be of minor impact, limited to scientific and public perceptions of the decline in ecological value of natural ecosystems/amenities.
2.14 How important is the social harm likely to be in the Risk
Assessment area? minor - 1 LOW - 0 No formal assessment has been made, but this is currently considered to
be of minor impact.
2.15 How likely is it that genetic traits can be carried to native species, modifying their genetic nature and making their economic, environmental or social effects more serious?
very unlikely - 0 MEDIUM -1
Although the species has been forced experimentally to cross-breed with another European cyprinid (Gozlan & Beyer 2006) the young were not viable, and there is no evidence of genetic contamination of fish species native to Europe.
2.16 How probable is it that natural enemies, already present in the Risk Assessment area, will have no affect on populations of the organism if introduced?
very likely - 4 LOW - 0
Biological resistance (by brown trout and chub) was examined in the doctoral research of K. Beyer (2008) and was found to be insufficient (i.e.
well below that required) to affect adversely TMG, which has a short life span and matures early (at age 1). Other predators exist in the UK, e.g.
northern pike, but there is no evidence from other infested countries that these predators eliminate TMG completely from invested waters.
2.17 How easily can the organism be controlled?
very difficult - 4 LOW - 0
See papers by Britton and Brazier (in the attached bibliography), which explain that rotenone eradication is costly and complicated (for health and safety reasons) to employ.
2.18 How likely are control measures to disrupt existing biological or integrated systems for control of other
organisms? moderately likely -
2 MEDIUM -1
Rotenone is known to affect invertebrates and amphibia, so any use of these species as biological agents to control other species would be affected. Grass carp, which are sometimes used for weed control, are also susceptible to rotenone. The interaction of rotenone (a natural plant extract) with other chemical agents is unknown.
2.19 How likely is the organism to act as food, a host, a
symbiont or a vector for other damaging organisms? very likely - 4 LOW - 0 See papers by Gozlan et al. 2005; 2006 for details on TMG as a healthy host of the rosette agent.
2.20 Highlight those parts of the endangered area where economic, environmental and social impacts are most likely to occur
Conservation areas and angling
amenity waters
Summarise Entry very likely - 4 LOW - 0 It is here already and widely dispersed (Pinder et al. 2005a).
Summarise Establishment
very likely - 4 LOW - 0
It is established already, though occurrence in some locations does not necessarily lead to establishment, especially if removed when found (Copp et al. 2007a).
Summarise Spread rapid - 3 LOW - 0 It is spreading more or less rapidly (see Pinder et al. 2005a).
Summarise Impacts
major - 3 LOW - 0
See comments here above in 2.5 to 2.19, as well as Copp et al. (2005a), Gozlan et al. (2005; 2006) and in particular Britton et al. (2007; 2009).
Conclusion of the risk assessment HIGH -2
Conclusions on Uncertainty LOW - 0
Arkhipchuk, V.V. 1999. Chromosome database. Database of Dr. Victor Arkhipchuk. Online at www.fishbase.org. Accessed 14 August 2004.
Azuma, M. & Motomura, Y. 1998. Feeding habits of largemouth bass in a non-native environment, the case of a small lake with bluegill in Japan. Environmental Biology of Fishes 52, 379–389.
Adamek, Z. 2003. Evaluation experimentale de la consommation d'escargots d'eau par le poisson-chien (Pseudorasbora parva ). FAO Rapport sur les peche, Rome. 2003.
Adamek, Z. & Siddiqui, M.A. 1997. “Reproduction parameters in a natural population of topmouth gudgeon (Pseudorasbora parva ) and its condition and food characteristics with respect to sex dissimilarities.” Polish Archives of Hydrobiology 44, 145-152.
Ahne, W. & Thomsen, I. 1986. Isolation of pike fry rhabdovirus from Pseudorasbora parva (Temminck and Schlegel). Journal of Fish Diseases 9, 555-556.
Allen, Y., Kirby, S., Copp, G.H. & Brazier, M. 2006. Toxicity of rotenone to topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva for the species’ eradication from a tarn in Cumbria. Fisheries Management & Ecology 13, 337–340.
Aohagi, Y., Shibahara, T. & Kagota, K. 1995. Metacercariae of Clinostomum complanatum found from new fish hosts, Lateolabrax japonicus and Leuciscus hakonensis. Japanese Journal of Parasitology 44, 340-342.
Bănărescu, P. 1964. Pisces - Osteichthyes. Fauna Republicii populare Romîne. Vol. XIII. Ed. Academiei Republicii populare Romîne, București, 952 pp.
Berg, L.S. 1964. Freshwater fishes of the USSR and adjacent countries. volume 2, 4th edition. Jerusalem, Israel Program for Scientific Translations Ltd. (Russian version published 1949).
Beyer, K. 2004. Escapees of potentially invasive fishes from an ornamental aquaculture facility, the case of topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva. Journal of Fish Biology 65(Suppl. A), 326–327.
Beyer, K. 2008. Ecological implications of introducing Leucaspius delineatus (Heckel, 1843) and Pseudorasbora parva (Temminck and Schlegel, 1842) into inland waters in England. PhD Thesis, University of Hull. 418 pp.
Beyer, K., Copp, G.H. & Gozlan, R.E. 2007. Microhabitat use and interspecific associations of introduced topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva and native fishes in a small stream.
Journal of Fish Biology 71 (Supplement D), 224–238.
Beyer, K., Miranda, R., Copp, G.H. & Gozlan, R.E. 2006. Biometric relationships between body and bone size of two invasive non-native fish species in the UK: topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva and sunbleak Leucaspius delineatus. Folia Zoologica 55, 287–292.
Bianco, P.G. & Ketmaier, V. 2001. Anthropogenic changes in the freshwater fish fauna of Italy, with reference to the central region and Barbus graellsii , a newly established alien species of Iberian origin. Journal of Fish Biology 59 (Supplement A), 190–208. View Abstract
Billard, R. 1997. Les poissons d’eau douce des rivières de France. Identification, inventaire et répartition des 83 espèces. Lausanne, Delachaux & Niestle, 192 pp.
Blanc, M., Gaudet, J.L., Banarescu, P. & Hureau, J.C. 1971. European inland water fish, a multilingual catalogue. London, Fishing News (Books) Ltd.
Bogutskaya, N.G. & Naseka, A.M. 1996. Cyclostomata and fishes of Khanka Lake drainage area (Amur river basin). An annotated check-list with comments on taxonomy and zoogeography of the region. Zool. Inst. Russ. Acad. Sci., 89 pp.
References
Britton, J.R. & Brazier, M. 2006. Eradicating the invasive topmouth gudgeon, Pseudorasbora parva , from a recreational fishery in northern England. Fisheries Management and Ecology 13, 329–335.
Britton, J.R. & Davies, G.D. 2007a. Length-weight relationships of the invasive topmouth gudgeon (Pseudorasbora parva ) in ten lakes in the UK. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 23, 624–626.
Coad, B.W. 1981. Fishes of Afghanistan, an annotated check-list. Publications in Zoology, National Museums of Canada, 14, 23.
Coad, B.W. 1996. Exotic fish species in the Tigris-Euphrates basin. Zoology in the Middle East 13, 71-83.
of the region. Zool. Inst. Russ. Acad. Sci., 89 pp.
Britton, J.R., Davies, G.D., Brazier, M. & Pinder, A.C. 2007. A case study on the population ecology of a topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva population in the UK and the implications for native fish communities. Aquatic Conservation 17, 749–759.
Britton, J.R., Davies, G.D., Brazier, M. & Pinder, A.C. 2008. Case studies on eradicating the Asiatic cyprinid topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva from fishing lakes in England to prevent their riverine dispersal. Aquatic Conservation 17, 749–759.
Britton, J.R., Davies, G.D. & Brazier, M. 2009. Eradication of the invasive Pseudorasbora parva results in increased growth and production of native fishes. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 18, 8–14.
Britton, J.R., Davies, G.D, Cucherousset, J., Godard, M.J. & Copp, G.H. (submitted). Introduced fishes and climate change in England and Wales: predicting species responses to warmer temperatures, with particular regard to Cyprinus carpio and Silurus glanis .
Carpentier, A., Gozlan, R.E., Cucherousset, J., Paillisson, J-M. & Marion, L. 2007. Is topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva responsible for the decline in sunbleak Leucaspius delineatus populations? Journal of Fish Biology 71 (Suppl. A), 274–276.
Cesco, H., Lambert, A. & Crivelli, A.J. 2001. Pseudorasbora parva (Teleosteen, Cyprinidae) espèce invasive, nouvel agent du maintien et de la dissemination de l'anguillicolose en France?
Parasite 8, 75-76.
Coombs, J. 2004. Comparative morphology of an invasive freshwater fish species, the topmouth gudgeon (Pseudorasbora parva ). Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. Natural Environment Research Council Online. http://www.ceh.ac.uk/scisoc/nuffield/JamesCoombes.html. Accessed on 23 January 2008.
Copp, G.H., Garthwaite, R. & Gozlan, R.E. 2005a. Risk identification and assessment of non-native freshwater fishes, concepts and perspectives on protocols for the UK. Cefas Science Technical Report No. 129, Cefas, Lowestoft. 32 pp.
Copp, G.H., Wesley, K.J., Verreycken, H. & Russell, I.C. 2007a. When an ‘invasive’ fish species fails to invade! Example of the topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva . Aquatic Invasions 2, 107–112.
Cui J, Ren X, Yu Q, 1991. Nuclear DNA content variation in fishes. Cytologia 56, 425-429. View Abstract
Copp, G.H., Bianco, P.G., Bogutskaya, N., Erıs, T., Falka, I., Ferreira, M.T., Fox, M.G., Freyhof, J., Gozlan, R.E., Grabowska, J., Kováč, V., Moreno-Amich, R., Naseka, A.M., Peňáz, M., Povž, M., Przybylski, M., Robillard, M., Russell, I.C., Stak÷nas, S., Šumer, S., Vila-Gispert, A. & Wiesner, C. 2005b. To be, or not to be, a non-native freshwater fish? Journal of Applied Ichthyology 21, 242–262.
Copp, G.H., Garthwaite, R. & Gozlan, R.E. 2005c. Risk identification and assessment of non-native freshwater fishes, a summary of concepts and perspectives on protocols for the UK.
Journal of Applied Ichthyology 21, 371–373.
Gabrielyan BK, 2001. An annotated checklist of freshwater fishes of Armenia. Naga, 24(3/4), 23-29. View Abstract
ț ț
Erk’aran F, 1984. Trakya Bölgesi’nden Türkije için yeni kayıt olan bir balik türü Pseudorasbora parva (Pisces-Cyprinidae) Doğa Bilim Dergisi, 8(A2), 350-351.
FAO, 1997. FAO Database on Introduced Aquatic Species. FAO Database on Introduced Aquatic Species. Rome, FAO, 202 pp.
Copp, G.H., Templeton, M. & Gozlan, R.E. 2007b. Propagule pressure and the invasion risks of non-native freshwater fishes in Europe, a case study of England. Journal of Fish Biology 71 (Supplement), 148–159.
Copp, G.H., Vilizzi, L. & Gozlan, R.E. (submitted -a) The demography of introduction pathways, propagule pressure and non-native freshwater fishes occurrences in England.
Copp, G.H., Vilizzi, L. & Gozlan, R.E. (submitted -b) Fish movements: the introduction pathway for topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva and other non-native fishes in the UK.
Copp, G.H., Vilizzi, L., Mumford, J., Fenwick, G.V., Godard, M.J. & Gozlan, R.E. 2009. Calibration of FISK, an invasive-ness screening tool for non-native freshwater fishes. Risk Analysis 29, 457–467.
Czeczuga, B., Kiziewicz, B. & Danilkiewicz, Z. 2002. Zoosporic fungi growing on the specimens of certain fish species recently introduced to Polish waters. Acta Ichthyologica et Piscatoria 32, 117-125.
Declerck S, Louette G, de Bie T, de Meester L, 2002. Patterns of diet overlap between populations of non-indigenous and native fishes in shallow ponds. Journal of Fish Biology, 61, 1182- 1197.
DEFRA, 2004. DEFRA Online. http, //www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/livefish-order/annexb.pdf. Accessed on 2 May 2004.
Dussling U, Berg R, 2001. Fische in Baden-Wuerttemberg. Ministerium fuer Ernaehrung und Laendlichen Raum Baden-Wuerttemberg. pp. 176.
FAO, 2004. Aquatic macrophytes as a habitat of vectors and hosts of tropical diseases, and biological control using fish food and agriculture organisations. Online. http, //www.fao.org/DOCREP/006/X7580E/X7580E14.htm. Accessed on 28 April 2004.
FishBase, 2004. Entry for Pseudorasbora parva. Main ref. Bogutskaya NG, Naseka AM, 1996. Cyclostomata and fishes of Khanka Lake drainage area (Amur river basin). An annotated check- list with comments on taxonomy and zoogeography of the region. Zool. Inst. Russ. Acad. Sci, 89 pp. Online at www.fishbase.org. Accessed 24 April 2004.
Gaviloaie, I.C. & Falka, I. 2006. Considerații asupra răspândiri actuale a murgoiului bălțat – Pseudorasbora parva (Temminck & Schlegel, 1846)(Pisces, Cyprinidae, Gobininae) – în Europa.
Brukenthal Acta Musei, 1(3), 145-149.
Keith P, Allardi J, 2001. Atlas des poissons d’eau douce de France. Patrimoines naturels, 47. Paris, France, MNHN, 387 pp.
Klinkhardt M, Tesche M, Greven H, 1995. Database of fish chromosomes. Westarp Wissenschaften, 179 pp.
Katano, O., Nakamura, T. & Yamamoto, S. 2003. Comparison of consumption of bluegill by Far Eastern catfish and largemouth bass. Fisheries Science 69, 989-994. View Abstract Katano, O., Nakamura, T. & Yamamoto, S. 2004. Predation of Japanese minnow Pseudorasbora parva by bluegill Lepomis macrochirus in experimental aquaria. Japanese Society of Fisheries Science. Online. http, //www.miyagi.kopas.co.jp/JSFS/jsfsenglish/E-PUB/69-5/p733.html. Accessed on 2 May 2004.
Gozlan RE, Beyer K, 2006. Hybridisation between Pseudorasbora parva and Leucaspius delineatus. Folia Zoologica, 55, 53-60.
Gozlan RE, Pinder AC, Shelley J, 2002. Occurrence of the Asiatic cyprinid Pseudorasbora parva in England. Journal of Fish Biology 61, 298-300.
Gozlan RE, St-Hilaire S, Feist SW, Martin P, Kents ML, 2005. Disease threat to European fish. Nature 435, 1046.
Gozlan RE, Peeler EJ, Longshaw M, St-Hilaire S, Feist SW, 2006. Effect of microbial pathogens on the diversity of aquatic populations, notably in Europe. Microbes and Infection 8, 1358- 1364.
Hanazato, T. & Yasuno, M. 1989. Zooplankton community structure driven by vertebrate and invertebrate predators. Oecologia 81, 450-458.
Kamilov G, Urchinov Zh U, 1995. Fish and fisheries in Uzbekistan under the impact of irrigated agriculture. In, Petr T, ed. Inland fisheries under the impact of irrigated agriculture, Central Asia. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 894, 10-41.
Konishi, M., Hosoya, K. & Takata, K. 2003. Natural hybridization between endangered and introduced species of Pseudorasbora , with their genetic relationships and characteristics inferred from allozyme analyses. Journal of Fish Biology 63, 213-231.
Konishi, M. & Takata, K. 2004. Isolation and characterization of polymorphic microsatellite DNA markers in topmouth gudgeon, Pseudorasbora (teleostei: Cyprinidae). Molecular Ecology Notes 4, 64-66.
Pinder, A.C. & Gozlan, R.E. 2003. Sunbleak and topmouth gudgeon — two new additions to Britain’s freshwater fishes. British Wildlife Dec., 77-83.
Scott, DM, Brown JA, Wilson RW, 2007. Can sunbleak Leucaspius delineatus or topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva disperse through saline waters? Journal of Fish Biology 71 (Supplement) (in press)
Kottelat M, 2001. Fishes of Laos. Colombo, Sri Lanka, WHT Publications Ltd., 198 pp.
Kotusz J, Witkowski A, 1998. Morphometrics of Pseudorasbora parva (Schlegel, 1842) (Cyprinidae, Gobioninae), a species introduced into the Polish waters. Acta Ichthyol. Piscat, 28(2), 3- 14.
Pollux BJA, Korosi A, 2006. On the occurrence of the Asiatic cyprinid Pseudorasbora parva in the Netherlands. Journal of Fish Biology, 69, 1575-1580.
Reshetnikov YS, Bogutskaya NG, Vasil’eva ED, Dorofeeva EA, Naseka AM, Popova OA, Savvaitova KA, Sideleva VG, Sokolov LI, 1997. An annotated check-list of the freshwater fishes of Russia. Journal of Ichthyology 37, 687-736.
Libosvárský C, Baruš CV, Sterba O, 1990. Facultative parasitism of Pseudorasbora parva (Pisces). Folia Zoologica, 39, 355-360.
Louette G, Gaethofs T, Hellemans B, Volchaert F, Teugels G, Declerck S, de Meester L, 2002. Ontwikkeling van een gedocumenteerde gegevensbank over uitheemse vissoorten in Vlaanderen met bijkomend onderzoek naar blauwbangrondel. Eindverslag van project VLINA 00/11. Studie uitgevoerd voor rekening van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap binnen het kader van het Vlaams Impulsprogramma Natuurontwikkeling in opdracht van de Vlaamse minister bevoegd voor natuurbehoud. D/2002/3241/136. 223 pp. + 39 appendices.
Maekawa K, Iguchi K, Katano O, 1996. Reproductive success in male Japanese minnows, Pseudorasbora parva , observations under experimental conditions. Ichthyological Research, 43, 257-266.
Movchan YuV, Smirnov AI, 1981. Fauna of Ukraine. Fishes. Cyprinid Fishes (Roach, dace, minnow, rudd, grass carp, asp, verchovka, tench, undermouth, gudgeon, barbel). (Fauna Ukrainy.
Ryby. Koropovi (Plitka, yalets, golijan, krasnopirka, amur, bilyzna, verkhova, lyn, chebachok amurskyi).. Kiev, Naukova Dumka Publishing House, 8(2) Part 1 (in Ukrainian).
Pinder AC, Gozlan RE, Britton JR, 2005. Dispersal of the invasive topmouth gudgeon, Pseudorasbora parva in the UK, a vector for an emergent infectious disease. Fisheries Management and Ecology 12, 411-414.
Rosecchi E, Crivelli AJ, Catsadoraski G, 1993. The establishment and impact of Pseudorasbora parva , an exotic fish species introduced into Lake Mikri Prespa (north-western Greece).
Aquatic Conservation, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 3, 223-231.
Rosecchi, E., Poizat, G. & Crivelli, A.J. 1997. Introductions de poisons d’eau douce et d’écrevisses en Camargue, historique, origins et modifications des peuplements. Bull. Fr. Pêche Piscic.
344/345, 221-232.
Rosecchi, E., Thomas, R. & Crivelli, A.J. 2001. Can life-history traits predict the fate of introduced species? a case study on two cyprinid fish in southern France. Freshwater Biology 46, 845- 853.
Pinder AC, 2005. Larval taxonomy and early identification of topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva , a screening tool to reduce risks of unintentional species translocation. Fisheries Management and Ecology 12, 99-104.
SEHUMED, 2000. SEHUMED Online. http, //sehumed.uv.es/revista/numero15/SEHUMED15_11.PDF. Accessed on 2 May 2004.
Shen SC, 1993. Fishes of Taiwan. Taipei, Department of Zoology, National Taiwan University, 960 pp.
Xie S, Cui Y, Zhang T, Li Z, 2000. Seasonal patterns in feeding ecology of three small fishes in the Biandantang Lake, China. Journal of Fish Biology 57, 867-880.
Stein H, Herl O, 1986. Pseudorasbora parva eine neue Art der mitteleuropaeischen Fischfauna. Zeitschrift fuer die Binnenfischerei, 36, 12. (In German).
Sunardi, Asaeda, T., & Manatunge, J. 2007. Physiological responses of topmouth gudgeon, Pseudorasbora parva , to predator cues and variation of current velocity. Aquatic Ecology, 41, 111- 118.
Wolfram-Wais, A. Wolfram, G., Auer, B, Mikschi, E. & Hain, A. 1999. Feeding habits of two introduced fish species (Lepomis gibbosus, Pseudorasbora parva ) in Neusiedler See (Austria), with special reference to chironomid larvae (Diptera, Chironomidae). Hydrobiologia 408/409, 123-129.
Xie Ping, Chen Yiyu, 2004. Biodiversity Problems in Freshwater Ecosystems in China, Impact of Human Activities and Loss of Biodiversity. http, //monkey.ioz.ac.cn/bwg-cciced/english/bwg- cciced/tech-31.htm. Accessed on 29 April 2004.
Xie C, Zhu B, Yuan X, Wang M, Hui J, 1997. The biology of Mandarin fish Siniperca chuatsi with reference to the problem of maximum sustainable yield in Bao’An Lake, Acta Hydrobiol. Sin.
21(9), 195-207.
Stak÷nas, S., Copp, G.H. & Scott, D.M. 2008. Tagging effects on three non-native fish species in England (Lepomis gibbosus, Pseudorasbora parva, Sander lucioperca ) and of native Salmo trutta . Ecology of Freshwater Fish 18, 167–176.
Trombitskiy ID, Kakhovskiy AE, 1987. On the facultative parasitism of the chebachok, Pseudorasbora parva , in fish ponds. Journal of Ichthyology, 27, 180-182.
Ujiie, M. & Mizuguchi, K. 1994. The change in fish catch composition and the predominance of the cyprinid, Pseudorasbora parva , in over-eutrophicated Lake Teganuma. Journal of the Tokyo University of Fisheries, 81, 71-84.
Weber E, 1984. Die Ausbreitung der Pseudokeilfleckbarben im Donauraum. Österreichs Fischerei, 37, 63-65.
Welcomme RL, 1988. International introductions of inland aquatic species. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 294, x + 318 pp. View Abstract
Wildekamp RH, Van Neer W, Kucuk F, Unlusayin M, 1997. First record of the eastern Asiatic gobionid fish Pseudorasbora parva from the Asiatic part of Turkey. Journal of Fish Biology 51, 858-861.
Witkowski A, 1991. Pseudorasbora parva (Schlegel, 1842) (Cyprinidae, Gobioninae) a new component of the Polish ichthyofauna. Przegląd Zoologiczny 35, 323-331.
Záhorská E, KováčV. Falka I, Beyer K, Katina S, Copp GH, Gozlan RE, 2007. Morphological variability of the Asiatic cyprinid, topmouth gudgeon Pseudorasbora parva , in its introduced European range. Journal of Fish Biology 74, 167–185.
